beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim, including the part expanded in the trial, is dismissed.
3. Action.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around March 2013, the Plaintiff constructed a singke and a floor board for the construction of a new building on the Incheon Cheongjin-gun C (hereinafter “instant building”).
Nevertheless, the defendant is entitled to the payment of 14 million won and 6.2 million won for the installation of the floor board. Thus, the defendant is entitled to the payment to the plaintiff.
In addition, the Plaintiff set up TV, cooling, laundry, clothes, and TV sets (hereinafter “the instant household”) on the instant building, and paid KRW 9.3.8 million at its expense.
However, since the defendant did not return the plaintiff's household of this case, it sought payment of half of the above costs of KRW 4.69 million.
2. Determination
A. The part of the cost of installing a singing, boarding, and the installation of a singing and floor board claimed by the Plaintiff is ordinarily included in the construction of a new building. Thus, the construction of a singing and floor board is part of the completion construction process of the instant building.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant concluded a construction contract on the instant building between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to the statements in Gap evidence 4 and Eul evidence 3, it is only recognized that the plaintiff received the above construction from the E apartment in which D or D is the representative director.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff seeking the amount of the instant household expense on the ground that the Defendant did not return the instant household, and thus, examined this as tort or unjust enrichment.
In full view of the following circumstances, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s tort or unjust enrichment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
1. This.